It is for the American people to choose the next president of the United States. Anyone who is not a citizen should proffer advice on the question only with the greatest humility and tact. The price paid in money or in blood for the decisions of the president falls mainly, even if not exclusively, on Americans. And the nuances of political discussion, so important in selecting leaders, are often hard for outsiders to grasp.

Yet it would be naive to think that readers of a British newspaper have no stake in the outcome of the contest between Barack Obama and John McCain. Both the economic and the foreign policy of the White House incumbent have a big impact on other nations.

Any American who doubts this might, with profit, reflect upon the history of Tony Blair's Government. A party of the Centre Left found its policy profoundly changed by the selection of a conservative president in 2000. As this episode demonstrates, the politics of our two nations are intertwined.

So, while it is only one small element in a big decision, it may be that now that the debates are over, some Americans wish to know how their election appears to many British people.

The rise of Barack Obama seemed supremely unlikely a year ago. It was not just the formidable Clinton machine that stood in his way. It was also history. Only fifty years ago, across the South, it was impossible for an African-American to eat at a lunch counter, attend college or vote alongside white Americans. In the years when Martin Luther King marched, and preached and died for civil rights, the very idea of a black man in the Oval Office would have been fanciful.

So race cannot be ignored in this election, even by those who do not live in America. For if the United States were to choose its first African- American, Britain's ally in the fight for liberty and democracy would be sending out a message. It would be that through peaceful struggle, and democratic protest, oppression can be overcome, freedom can be won and tolerance can be victorious. An Obama inaugural presidential address would deliver an eloquent sermon on Western values before its first word had been uttered.

Both charisma and novelty can take a candidate so far. But Mr Obama has needed much more, and the more he has needed speaks well of him as a potential president.

First, he has needed a certain steeliness. On the platform Mr Obama can soar; in private it is his stillness that impresses. His opponents level against him the charge that he is a machine politician, rather than a bright-eyed reformer. Yet this charge can as easily be turned to Mr Obama's advantage. It suggests that he is tough, as he will need to be.

Secondly, he has needed to show that he is not a captive of his party's Left. The biggest question, for a European, over an Obama presidency is whether he would prove able to face up to the security challenges. It is impossible to be certain. But his words, for instance on Pakistan and Iran,have been reassuring.

Finally, he has needed to show himself good in a crisis. And here he has been decisively better than his Republican opponent. On the economy he has been better advised, shown better judgement, and been better at keeping his cool.

Senator John McCain is an authentic hero. He has also been a brave politician. His moment, however, has gone. His campaign has failed to inspire and his eccentric choice of a running-mate was irresponsible.

Americans still have many questions about Mr Obama. This election is not over. But The Times, reflecting upon an American choice, hopes that the outcome will be an Obama victory.